WSJ.com explains why Iran's current promises are still meaningless, and Ledeen hits it on the head again:
"Thirty years of negotiations and sanctions have failed to end the Iranian nuclear program and its war against the West. Why should anyone think they will work now? A change in Iran requires a change in government. Common sense and moral vision suggest we should support the courageous opposition movement, whose leaders have promised to end support for terrorism and provide total transparency regarding the nuclear program."
Anne Applebaum writes the same thing in Salon, saying that "Tehran's worst fear is a well-financed human rights campaign." In other words, talk less to Iran and more to Iranians.
Unfortunately, this also seems to be Obama's worst fear. Applebaum is also dead wrong to say that "he people who care about [the democracy movement] are rarely much interested in [Iran's nuclear program] - and vice versa." In fact, most of the people concerned with the nuclear program see the democracy movement as the best hope for progress, and have for some time. Obama, in contrast, has a consistent record of aversion to promoting or supporting human rights, rule of law, and other niceties abroad. Which is why the drift will continue, until Iran has the bomb.
Joe, my understanding is that most human rights groups don't really like the American government, and don't really want to be openly associated for us. For some reason, Iranians (even pro-western Iranians) have a long history of distrust with the American government.
I wonder why that could be....
Wow, I screwed that post up badly. What I meant to say was that many of Iranian protest groups don't actively like the united states government meddling in their affairs, and don't want to be actively linked with us.